Thoughts on chemical castration
Prof. Berman points to this story out of Oregon (via Corrections Sentencing) which says that the state is considering employing chemical castration to prevent “high-risk” offenders from re-offending.
The state is close to approving a Corrections Department budget that includes money to expand the state’s chemical castration program. If passed, the state would pay for high-risk sex offenders to receive twice-monthly shots of Depo-Provera, a testosterone-reducing drug.
Depo-Provera, originally developed as a contraceptive for women, creates sexual apathy in men by reducing the level of testosterone. European countries have used the drug since the 1960s to treat sex offenders. It’s less popular in the U.S., and Oregon is one of fewer than 10 states reported to have chemical castration laws.
Prof. Berman asks whether chemical castration (if proven to work) should be employed (actually, why shouldn’t it be). As readers might guess, I am uneasy with this proposition. There are several assumptions here: That we know that “high-risk” offenders will re-offend; that all “high-risk” offenders will re-offend. This does dip into some “Minority Report” territory. I’m quite uneasy by the idea that we will assume that all high-risk offenders are going to re-offend and we need to stop that by subduing the sexual urge by reducing levels of testosterone.
Those are some mighty assumptions and I’m uncomfortable with that. There are (have to be) better alternatives to this. What if we have an offender that, despite being “high-risk” is rehabilitated and wishes to live a normal life? I see visions of Buck v. Bell.
Btw, here are resources for chemical castration and resources against chemical castration.
Tell me how I’m wrong.
people always (mistakenly) assume ’sexual’ assault and ’sexual’ crimes are indeed sexual.
they are NOT. they are crimes of violence and power. chemical (or real) castration is not the answer. i fear they will just assault again…………..
True that SOME sexual offences are about violence and power, but only some.
What perhaps is more important is that even if they are about violnece, then reducing testosterone will also reduce violent behaviour.
Think about it, Men are much more violent on the whole than women. Women have much lower testosterone levels than men and it has been proven that many violent men have high testosterone levels.
Therefore make them more feminine in their hormone composition and they are much less likely to have violent urges.
Of course, it all depends upon the definition of “high risk,” and what research underpins the definition.
As an aside–kinda off-topic, but not really– there was a fairly recent study out of the UK demonstrating that something as simple as nutritional supplements reduced violent behavior and increased impulse control–even among those deemed most violent. In that study, it was Omega-3 (fish oils) that made an incredible difference. The article also tracked the historical rise in crime alongside the decrease of Omega-3 in the standard diet.
Other US studies done in juvi facilities got similar results from simple dietary changes and multivitamins.
The difference between this and Bell (or the no death penalty for adult rape case) is that it isn’t permanent and involves someone who was convicted of a crime for which lifetime imprisonment, or at least, lifetime parole supervision, is often a punishment.
Convicted sex offenders are clearly higher risk for committing a sex offense in the future than people never convicted of a crime. And, the fact that chemical castration isn’t permanent means that the permanency risk associated with physical castration or execution doesn’t apply. If the sentence is later vacated, the chemical castration can discontinue.
The assumption is not: “That we know that “high-risk” offenders will re-offend; that all “high-risk” offenders will re-offend.” The assumption is that (1) we know that “some” high risk offenders will re-offend (something about which we have abundant proof), (2) indeed that high risk offenders will re-offend at a rate significantly greater than the general population of people never convicted of an offese (something about which we also have abundant proof), and (3) that chemical castration reduces the risk of a high risk offender reoffending (something that research studies are supposed to discern).
At significant reduction in sex offense recidivism would make parole officials and the public more comfortable with allowing someone’s release, which gives that individual greater freedom than incarceration (which employs the abstinence only approach rather differently), and would reduce the number of victims of released sex offenders. Its existence also might discourage juries in death penalty for child rape states from imposing the death penalty, if that punishment is upheld as constitutional (as it has been at the state supreme court level).
people always (mistakenly) assume ’sexual’ assault and ’sexual’ crimes are indeed sexual.
they are NOT. they are crimes of violence and power. chemical (or real) castration is not the answer. i fear they will just assault again…………..
Chemical castration reduces testosterone. Testosterone is a major factor in the fact that more than 95% of violent felonies are committed by men. Assuming you are correct that sexual assault is a crime of violence and power, and not about sex, it doesn’t follow that chemical castration will not dramatically reduce it.
Indeed, the hard question is really not, why not chemically castrate high risk sex offenders, but why not chemically castrate all high risk violent offenders whose offenses were not committed in cold blood.
From the pro link above:
“a 1989 German study by Wille and Beier, for instance, compared 99 surgically castrated sex offenders and 35 non-castrated sex offenders about a decade after their release from prison, and found that the recidivism rate of castrated offenders was 3%, while the rate for non-castrated offenders was 46%. . . . studies by James Dabbs et al. (See Crime Times, Vol. 1, No. 3, Page 2 ) . . . strongly suggest a link between elevated testosterone levels and violence, delinquency, substance abuse, and prison rule violations.”
If we could get from 46% recidivism to 3% recidivism, that would meet the effective standard in my book.
The inherent problems, as noted by others, of defining “high risk” aside, I have to say in all seriousness that to deprive someone of any and all sexual pleasure (which, believe it or not, even former sex offenders can enjoy legally!)for the rest of his/her life is definitely cruel and unusual punishment!
Seriously, this is barbaric and scary.
??? you mean as barbaric and scary as them coming out a raping / murdering / seriously assaulting / abusing more innocent victims?
Sedating somebody to allow them to integrate back into society is much more humane than putting them back into the same situation in which they offended and do nothing to stop them re-offending again. This is unfair on both the victim and the criminal themselves and if you see controlling their urges to re-offend as ‘barbaric’ you need to check your dictionary definition of the word.
The problem with ALL the theories about chemical castration is someone’s bumping up those “success” numbers. I’ve read of multiple cases where an offender was “chemically” castrated and you know what? They just use whatever ELSE is at hand to rape the person!! Chemical castration doesn’t work and prison doesn’t work for ANYONE..all prison does is teach them to kill the person the next time so they have LESS of a chance of getting caught.
I am a guy that always simply found sexual desire frustrating and unobtainable. I am not a sex offender or anything, just found sexual thoughts occupied too much time. I have been chemically castrating myself since 1999 with Cyperterone. I will state this is not as complete as desired. It requires 100mg daily and 150mg every 5th day. And I speak with experience when I say, not all desire is gone and in fact still have the physical capacity for entry. The things not possible are impregnation or ejaculation. I wish I could have surgical castration which would better rid me of sexual thoughts and sure be easier on my liver. Even after surgical castration, erections are possible, just difficult. So I will add that on a sex predator, castration alone isn’t really enough. I believe removal or reduction of the penis itself would make penetration impossible. Still even that will not eliminate sexual assault, but it would rape and penetration. As said my mplementing chemical castration was my choice and in fact a choice that I really didn’t want to be preoccupied with sexual thoughts leading no where. I have never acted on anything as a sexual crime. And just in case anyone wonders, it has allowed me to have some great relations with women where we can appreciate each other for all the other reasons. For the person that said testosterone is related to crime. Might be. I still feel aggression at times, just that I can put the macho act behind. Even have had sex with women on a few occaassion. But lacking desire my concentration can be on giving pleasure instead of my own. And I get mental orgasms instead of the other. Funny thing is nowhere in the US will doctors chemically castrate for my request. About the only ones that can obtain it are transgendered. So I obtained things on my own and am checked for liver problems every 6 months. Depo Provera is the other option. Seems that requires 300 to 450mg monthly. A woman takes 150mg every 3 months to prevent pregnancies and have problems. One thing with Cyperterone. If you drink alcohol it doesn’t work. So for a felon or others not actually wanting it it’s not an option. And as is I have to take one half pill every 6 hours. So takes committment.